Editor's note: Cen Ziyuan is a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In the age of instant global information, a disaster on the Nepal-China national border should be a story about humanity, not a downplaying or distortion of what is happening on the ground. When the devastating mudslide tore through Gyirong County in southwest China's Xizang Autonomous Region on August 26, the response that followed was comprehensive, meticulous, and humane.

I was embedded among the first dispatch of emergency responders who headed to the epicenter of the mudslide on the evening of August 26, flying into Xigaze on a chartered flight from Chengdu, followed by a six-hour bus ride to Gyirong County the next day.

A race against time, secondary disasters

The mudslide did not end when the debris settled. The looming threat of secondary disasters, including landslides, collapses and further geological instability in the fragile Himalayan terrain, demanded immediate and decisive action.

Monitoring teams dispatched by China's Ministry of Emergency Management were on duty all day round to watch for any other potential risks of another collapse. The team, organized under the Swift Emergency Response Mechanism, has been divided into two groups: one for monitoring and the other for supply delivery.

An evacuation took place on the afternoon of August 28 as monitoring teams were alerted to a discharge and collapse of a barrier lake. Meanwhile, firefighters attempted to reach the epicenter by air, on foot, and by boat. However, due to deep mud and challenging weather, helicopters were not able to land.

The Special Disaster Rescue Department of the National Fire and Rescue Administration told CGTN that the mudslide has completely changed the riverbed. The linear distance to the border is about 1 kilometer(km), but it is about 3 km traveling down through water. The roadbed was destroyed, and search and rescue personnel had to approach the epicenter either by helicopter airdrop or by foot in the first two days. Until China's Anneng Group was brought in, the road to the Gyirong Port was connected on September 2, a week after the disaster hit.

No one left behind: The resettlement effort

Relief supplies provided so far total nearly 70,000 items as of August 30. Xizang has also allocated a large quantity of supplies from within the region, bringing the total to more than 100,000 items. Residents of high-risk areas, including180 villagers from Guoba Village, were relocated to temporary shelters before danger could turn into further tragedy since the disaster hit.

This is disaster management at its most essential: not just rescuing those already affected, but protecting those who might be affected next. Different categories of goods, such as tents, quilts, outdoor jackets for the harsh plateau climate, family hygiene kits, family emergency kits, and substantial food supplies, have been flowing continuously to those in need.

Behind this calm assurance lies an integrated support system covering medical care, psychological counseling and the necessities of life, addressing the whole person, not just the immediate emergency.

Chinese authorities registered and tracked information for both Chinese nationals and foreign citizens caught in the disaster alike, opened a 24-hour consultation hotline for families of the missing regardless of nationality, and kept channels of communication open and dynamic.

While facing a major disaster of its own, China did not hesitate to share satellite remote-sensing data and hydrological-meteorological monitoring with Nepal and dispatched specialist teams, including tunnel rescue experts and DNA identification professionals, across the border to assist. By September 8, China had sent four batches of humanitarian relief to Nepal, organized by the China International Development Cooperation Agency.

Why, then, the silence – and the distortion?

Here lies the question that certain foreign media outlets should be prepared to answer. Why do reports that reach global audiences so often omit the 100,000 relief items delivered, the villages relocated to safety, the 24-hour hotline established for foreign families, the satellite data shared, and the specialist teams sent to Nepal? Why, when such extensive and tangible efforts are mentioned at all, are they reduced to vague insinuation rather than presented as verifiable facts?

The pattern is familiar. When China responds to disaster, its efforts are minimized while coverage is curated to fit a predetermined script. But this time, the gap between that narrative and the facts on the ground is too wide to ignore.

Officials from the Ministry of Emergency Management have publicly stated the figures. Red Cross officers have enumerated the supplies. Resettled villagers have spoken, including to CGTN's own camera, about food and accommodation being well arranged. These are not talking points. They are verifiable facts from named sources at the scene.

Meanwhile, the disastrous mudslide is another daunting reminder to humanity that the challenges of climate change will only intensify: more extreme weather, more unstable terrain, more disasters that respect no borders. No country will face this future alone, and no country will be spared from the test.

The question, then, is not whether disasters will strike, but how we choose to respond when they do. Facts on the ground tell a clear story. China acted swiftly to protect those at risk, provide relief to affected communities, and extend assistance to Nepal despite facing the disaster itself. These efforts deserve to be seen and assessed on the basis of what actually happened, rather than distorted by preconceived narratives. In the face of shared challenges, what matters most is not the story we choose to tell, but the lives we choose to protect and the hands we extend across borders.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)